Capitalism vs. Socialism

To sum both ideologies up in the simplest of terms; capitalism is a political and economic method where industries and businesses are privately owned and depending on the market’s requirements, things are often made to demand so that companies can run a profitable and organised business to offer trade and employment opportunities; whereas socialism is a social and political method in which private ownership is replaced by co-operative community ownership. They believe that everyone lives to co-operate and contribute towards the communal good, so all should seek reward for their work. Socialists say that their social organisation promotes equality and job protection as the workers work for requirement, not for profit. Karl Marx made the following quote famous in 1875:

“Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen”

Which in English translates to:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”

Many argue that capitalism isn’t good as the rich get richer, and once big conglomerates secure an area of the market they dominate and put smaller companies in danger, and workers are exploited. Others argue that communism and socialism is the root of all evil and you just have to look at the aftermath of the October revolution in Russia; or the Great Leap Forward in China that let to droughts and famines and many millions lost their lives; or were ritually slaughtered; died from poor treatment during forced labour; or executed for rebelling against the government as they starved to death. There are stories of mass suicides and acts of cannibalism in both Russia and China as the government watched on.

But does this mean that socialism is a bad ideology, or has it been a tool for cruel dictatorships?

“Capitalism does not permit an even flow of economic resources. With this system, a small privileged few are rich beyond conscience, and almost all others are doomed to be poor at some level. That’s the way the system works. And since we know that the system will not change the rules, we are going to have to change the system.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

According to Forbes, Jeff Bezos in August 2020 exceeded a $200,000,000,000 fortune, and Elon Musk is slightly in his shadow with a mere $153,000,000,000 fortune, but because of capitalism they legally, yet unethically, pay their employees minimum wage that’s set out as a government employment rule. The rich get richer, the elite get more powerful and the rest of us try and get by, not even knowing that indirectly we might be working for one of these moguls. I understand that both are talented entrepreneurs, and Elon Musk has his scientific mind, and that they both worked hard to achieve and become extremely wealthy and successful, but because of capitalism, they can bully other companies, push them out of the way with lawsuits, and cover all of the bases like Apple have tried to do by turning the brand into a fashion accessory, and with clever marketing and slick designs they’ve become the biggest phone maker in the world and in August they exceeded a $2 trillion net worth. Do you think the people who work in the warehouses or drive the vehicles are going to be paid favourably because the company they’re employed by is so profitable?

So is capitalism a better alternative to socialism, or does it promote greed and inequality?

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” – Winston Churchill

Die Religion … ist das Opium des Volkes

One of the most famous quotes that people take from the German philosopher, and economist Karl Marx, is:

“Die Religion … ist das Opium des Volkes” – Karl Marx

Translated into English this means:

“Religion … is the opiate of the people” – Karl Marx

The phrase was taken from two works of Marx, firstly ‘Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie | Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right), and secondly ‘Deutsch–Französische Jahrbücher | German–French Annals‘ which was a journal he published with Arnold Ruge.

The full wording is as follows:

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people” – Karl Marx

Sigmund Freud’s view of religion isn’t too different to Marx’s, but with Freud being a neurologist and the founder of psychoanalysis, he looked at it from a mental psychology view point:

“Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we have developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological necessities. But it cannot achieve its end. Its doctrines carry with them the stamp of the times in which they originated, the ignorant childhood days of the human race. Its consolations deserve no trust. Experience teaches us that the world is not a nursery. The ethical commands, to which religion seeks to lend its weight, require some other foundations instead, for human society cannot do without them, and it is dangerous to link up obedience to them with religious belief. If one attempts to assign to religion its place in man’s evolution, it seems not so much to be a lasting acquisition, as a parallel to the neurosis which the civilized individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity.” – Sigmund Freud

As you can see, Freud compares religion to the ignorant childhood days. In other words, religion is for people who know no better, and the following quote summarises religious belief perfectly:

“Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.” – Sigmund Freud

The psychology of religion is a strange concept, and it’s literally about people passing their responsibly away, and putting God’s will in its place. Due to God taking responsibility, humans who have faith have sacrificed their freedom for indoctrination and control:

“Immorality, no less than morality, has at all times found support in religion” – Sigmund Freud

From a theistic perspective, something morally good happens, then theists praise and thank their loving God; whichever one their parents decided to brainwash them with, and something immoral happens, then they have the most perfect scapegoat – ‘Satan’.

Theists believe that God gave free will, but if they are doing something that’s considered righteous they thank God, but if someone does something against God, or the words of the Bible then they are consumed and controlled by Satan. This takes away responsibility for people’s actions. How fucking convenient.

Religion accounts for approximately 85% of the world’s population which still leaves over a billion non-believers. Can 17/20 of the world’s population be wrong? Of course they can, and you have to give accountability to the people that created every religion. Religion is about controlling the masses.

“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.” – Napoleon Bonaparte

Whilst this does seem quite accurate, I think there’s more to it than that. Religion is an answer for what some humans can’t explain, and rather than just admitting that not everything is known, and not everything can be answered, theists just claim:

‘God did it!’

When asked how they could possibly know this, you’re told that the ‘Bible, Qur’an or Torah’ is God’s word, and God doesn’t lie. What hope have you got attempting to reason with that mindset?

God’s law

No one wants to live within a theocratic state unless you’ve been indoctrinated to believe that all of the ‘sins’ that are within their holy scripture dictates the law of the land. I’ve encountered many Muslims that want nothing more than the world ruled by Sharia Law, but if this was to happen the structure of western law, and a right to a fair trial would collapse. When I say fair trial, I mean outside of countries like the U.S.A, who generally have extremely religious Judges who have had the law of the Bible and God’s judgement drummed into them from childhood.

In the U.K the principal of law is no different to America’s other than the fact that religious conviction plays no part in your thought process as a practising judge. The punishment suits the crime (sometimes); and that punishment is based on severity of the crime, not because someone went out to collect some wood on a Sabbath, and god got pissed and ordered some dudes to stone him to death. If people accept stories like that from the Bible that attempts to brainwash its victim into believing that god’s judgement is fair, as he loves us all as we’re his children, should NEVER be put in a position where their religious brainwashing is going to influence them in a decision that could drastically fuck someone’s life up forever.

But it doesn’t just lie with the Judge, as the jury could be deeply religious as well. You’re getting the third degree from some hillbilly lawyer in Alabama, and you’re accused of taking a piss up against the sign that usually reads something like below, and you’ve got 12 jury persons sneering at you whilst tightly clutching their bibles, wishing they’d sneaked a firearm into the court with the wish of putting a cap in your ass. All joking aside, what chance does a person have if they are being put under trial by people that fear God?

This was only a quick thought that I decided to share.

This is an interesting article